Allah-lover
Member
Principles are more important
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does Non-Revealed mean?
- Thread starter TealLeaf
- Start date
Robert Landbeck
Member
I must take issue with the whole concept of 'revealed' knowledge. I am not ruling out the potential for God to reveal himself to humankind, but NOT in the ambiguous fashion of intellectual confusion, schism, discord and disagreement that the whole of religious history reflects and religious institution offers. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that theology, a very human intellectual process and upon which all mono-theism is founded is not even a valid human intellectual endeavor. If natural reason where capable of comprehending the mind of God there would be no purpose or need for any revelation or religion as we would by nature know. But that is self evidently not the case.
That theology exists at all must only be because nothing has been revealed. The only thing theology has revealed is just how complete is our ignorance of that reality called God. We have reduced our conception of God to the limitations and corruptions of natural reason, instead of allowing God to lift our understanding up above it. "All is vanity, all is chasing after wind."
That theology exists at all must only be because nothing has been revealed. The only thing theology has revealed is just how complete is our ignorance of that reality called God. We have reduced our conception of God to the limitations and corruptions of natural reason, instead of allowing God to lift our understanding up above it. "All is vanity, all is chasing after wind."
angrymoose
angrymoose
It means that the person describing the religion only looks at revelations from supernatural entities.
You know something about tea?
The moose bows!!!
I'm going to have a bit more of my Pu'er tea my friend's uncle gave me. I also love te guang yin and hongzhou longjin tea
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friends,
Friend Sunstone's explanation [post #2] is comprehensive for an understanding of what has been labelled as revealed and non-revealed religions.
However on the subject it is necessary to understand that enlightened people are people like every other human except that they were able to harmonsie the individual energy that they are like any other form [human] is, with that of the universal and so became a vessel or medium for the universal to be transmitted through them and so if they have revealed something directly or indirectly showed a practice or simply the understanding can also be stated as having been revealed as through such revelation it becomes easier for other individuals to harmonise the individual energy that they are with the universal.
Love & rgds
Friend Sunstone's explanation [post #2] is comprehensive for an understanding of what has been labelled as revealed and non-revealed religions.
However on the subject it is necessary to understand that enlightened people are people like every other human except that they were able to harmonsie the individual energy that they are like any other form [human] is, with that of the universal and so became a vessel or medium for the universal to be transmitted through them and so if they have revealed something directly or indirectly showed a practice or simply the understanding can also be stated as having been revealed as through such revelation it becomes easier for other individuals to harmonise the individual energy that they are with the universal.
Love & rgds
angrymoose
angrymoose
Zerozero, I unbolded your post. Sorry, it drives me nuts.
Yes, I agree, there was some merit in his explanation.
I also have qualifications to make tho. If there was no Lao-Tzu (or whoever) we can't say, "Taoism" would exist. There are truths revealed by Lao-tzi others may or may not have found.
What we can say, is that most don't feel Lao-Tze was a God or representative of god(s). He expressed the opinions of a man.
That said, the ICHING has properties that seem "revealed" and some Taoists believe in that. It is a form of "magic" that may not have existed otherwise. It was revealed on the shell of a turtle ...
The great tea master, Lu Yu, the author of the classic of Tea (which sadly isn't translated to Englihs)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Classic_of_Tea, may have had very unique insights about Tea that without his life, may never have been discovered.
Its likely other insights could have been found but his mastery of the art may have been unique
Well, I guess I agree with you here. In the context of your post, "enlightened people are 'in synch' whereas unenlightened aren't. In essence you seem to be discussing wu-wei in another way perhaps.
I dislike looking at somebody as being unenlightened. Now one can argue if I consider one guy to be enlightened, i should feel some are not enlightened but I think when I say Joe is enlightened, I mean he is enlightened in certain aspects of his life that I've observed.
Yes, I agree, there was some merit in his explanation.
I also have qualifications to make tho. If there was no Lao-Tzu (or whoever) we can't say, "Taoism" would exist. There are truths revealed by Lao-tzi others may or may not have found.
What we can say, is that most don't feel Lao-Tze was a God or representative of god(s). He expressed the opinions of a man.
That said, the ICHING has properties that seem "revealed" and some Taoists believe in that. It is a form of "magic" that may not have existed otherwise. It was revealed on the shell of a turtle ...
The great tea master, Lu Yu, the author of the classic of Tea (which sadly isn't translated to Englihs)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Classic_of_Tea, may have had very unique insights about Tea that without his life, may never have been discovered.
Its likely other insights could have been found but his mastery of the art may have been unique
Well, I guess I agree with you here. In the context of your post, "enlightened people are 'in synch' whereas unenlightened aren't. In essence you seem to be discussing wu-wei in another way perhaps.
I dislike looking at somebody as being unenlightened. Now one can argue if I consider one guy to be enlightened, i should feel some are not enlightened but I think when I say Joe is enlightened, I mean he is enlightened in certain aspects of his life that I've observed.
Last edited:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend angrymoose,
Yes, one is free to do things the way he likes but must accept the form available!!!
Meaning if not Lao Tsu then it will be another form. TRUTH is always NAKED, waiting to be revealed except out of compassion does a form take that effort to do so.
The vedas are full of thousands of revelations by thousands like Loa Tsu except that they are yet to find vehicles to get churned once again.
Can you imagine any other time Liu Xiaobo getting the nobel peace prize? Similarly it is not important who it is too. Something had to happen and it happened. Be it Lao Tsu or Lu Yu or you or me or x,y,z. Each is simply another form of existence.
A drop in the ocean.
The drop that needs to be understood is the drop in the form of *angrymoose* itself as the essence of that one drop is that of the ocean itself!
Love & rgds
That surely reflects an insight of how anger[energy form] can be used positively.
Yes, one is free to do things the way he likes but must accept the form available!!!
Existence finds its own way to *POINT* or rather speak to itself as every form [humans too] are parts of that *whole* itself.
Meaning if not Lao Tsu then it will be another form. TRUTH is always NAKED, waiting to be revealed except out of compassion does a form take that effort to do so.
The vedas are full of thousands of revelations by thousands like Loa Tsu except that they are yet to find vehicles to get churned once again.
Sorry, the subject is not meditated on for any personal understanding on the subject to state anything about.
There are thousand like tea that have already been discovered in AYURVEDA which has analysed properties of so many plant life that the discovery of tea is negligible. However once again do understand that existence itself finds its own way to reveal when the time is ripe the environment is right for it to happen.
Can you imagine any other time Liu Xiaobo getting the nobel peace prize? Similarly it is not important who it is too. Something had to happen and it happened. Be it Lao Tsu or Lu Yu or you or me or x,y,z. Each is simply another form of existence.
A drop in the ocean.
The drop that needs to be understood is the drop in the form of *angrymoose* itself as the essence of that one drop is that of the ocean itself!
Love & rgds
angrymoose
angrymoose
I think one can argue, that happened as you elegantly point out in your post in mentioning for example the vedas. Hard to say.
Nice post.
Buddhism was revealed as you know from the Hnduism somewhere in South Asia (was it south Asia; correct me if I'm wrong) for the emancipation of the Caste System as much as the enlightening of the One Consciousness in the concerned Buddha-like behaviour. Caste Systems are no longer required; that is revealed. Confucianism is the philosophical example of Buddhism, and much acquaints itself with the Book of Changes, "I Ching"; amazingly that is not revealed; the superstitious hoard clings to itself, and through serious empirical experience accomplishes a religiously based community. Learning each other's rational incidences.
Oneatatime
Huh?
Revealed is another way of saying making something up and attributing it to a divine source. Non-revealed religions are typically based on philosophical musings and are generally human-orientated.
Marble
Rolling Marble
Isn't Buddhism considered revealed because it was founded by Gautama Buddha?
Confucianism is a philosophical system of ethics.
I Ching is a book about divination, while Tao Te King is a Taoist philosophical text attributed to Laozi.
It seem a little unfair to me. Its like saying that revealed religions are better or something than those unrevealed ones. These should be called naturalistic or philosophical religions. Or at least something better than "non-revealed". It's defining them by what they are not.
I know that Buddha resided somewhere in India because that was where the caste system existed and people were determined to follow the belonging to their religion in the Folkes way from the birth into one's vocation, but there are also some legends of Buddha trained through guru's in the Himalayas: specifically Siddhartha, I think realizing the lesson for trusting oneself and trusting one's fellowman for a life of Both meditation and survival. He reveals or it becomes revealed that the wanting is only a temporary state for the belonging of arbitrarily changing opportunities.
Really, the changes are only a illusion and the Philosophy of musing is to withdraw into oneself for overcoming the senses. Earth bound philosophies are all right to the religious enlightenment but not-revealed as said. What came first becomes the subject of philosophy; Buddha came first as God; but the Buddha has the uncertainty to tell us what is at security and what is at danger. Non-revealed is compassion, trust, and being a support to the community; revealed is how we fail or succeed. But, yes, many variations of the Buddha can tell that last one.
I haven't read the "I Ching" in a long time. I found it on the shelf today. That would be interesting to the 64 hexagon I own. I haven't been living the eightfold way though; so what conscience can I have for the Creation as such would probably make the Philosophy non-revealable. If there is anything that came first, the Buddha would be .... in balance or Not.
Really, the changes are only a illusion and the Philosophy of musing is to withdraw into oneself for overcoming the senses. Earth bound philosophies are all right to the religious enlightenment but not-revealed as said. What came first becomes the subject of philosophy; Buddha came first as God; but the Buddha has the uncertainty to tell us what is at security and what is at danger. Non-revealed is compassion, trust, and being a support to the community; revealed is how we fail or succeed. But, yes, many variations of the Buddha can tell that last one.
I haven't read the "I Ching" in a long time. I found it on the shelf today. That would be interesting to the 64 hexagon I own. I haven't been living the eightfold way though; so what conscience can I have for the Creation as such would probably make the Philosophy non-revealable. If there is anything that came first, the Buddha would be .... in balance or Not.
Last edited:
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
It means that the person(s) who created this category were looking at religion from the viewpoint of the Abrahamic faiths. Since the Abrahamic faiths are revealed, then the non-Abrahamic faiths are "non-revealed." It is a meaningless category that only indicates that these religions do not fit into the frame by which it is being judged.
So there are people who find "non-revealed" a displeasant label for a religion?
It never occurred to me that it might be so. I suppose it makes sense if one assumes that there is a God and that he wants to have people follow a specific religion, though.
Myself, I find the label of revealed religion a bit condescending, perhaps even depreciating. It implies that the faith can't stand on the merits of the wisdom and discernment of their own adherents.
Which brings me to the answer to Straw Dog's question in the post above, it seems to me that all religions must ultimately come from the expression and discovery of applied wisdom. That some believe or assume that they are instead handed down from some sort of higher source is something of a weakness for them.
It never occurred to me that it might be so. I suppose it makes sense if one assumes that there is a God and that he wants to have people follow a specific religion, though.
Myself, I find the label of revealed religion a bit condescending, perhaps even depreciating. It implies that the faith can't stand on the merits of the wisdom and discernment of their own adherents.
Which brings me to the answer to Straw Dog's question in the post above, it seems to me that all religions must ultimately come from the expression and discovery of applied wisdom. That some believe or assume that they are instead handed down from some sort of higher source is something of a weakness for them.
Trantorfuzz
Member
Your point could only hold water if you assume that claiming to have had a divine revelation is somehow better than claiming to have arrived at some divine truth through natural insight. Alas, this assumption, which is groundless, constitutes the very kind of anti-Eastern bias that you are imputing to the people who use the term "revealed religion."
What is more, the idea of revelation occurred in the Near East and West long before Westerners became familiar with Eastern teachings.
Perhaps a Westerner could criticize Daoism, for example, for lacking a Divine Authority to justify it.
However, a Daoist could just as easily claim that the notion of a revelation from a transcendent source discourages us from having intuitive, wordless insight into the Dao/Reality, the real reality, not our concept of reality.
The use of the term "revealed religion" simply indicates that the religions so described are based on messages transmitted from the Godhead to certain human beings. This is not a "functionless" or "arbitrary" term.
Still, there is a grain of truth in what you say. Rather than describe religions without revelations as "non-revealed religions," one might wish to use a more positive terms such as "insight-based religions."
Me Myself
Back to my username
Nn revealed means humans understood for themselves. Or to be more specific, that's what it means to me
From such definition, buddhism could be non revealed.
As others said it is still revealed in the sense they needed to be shared for them to... Well, keep being here. If peoe werent being revealed such rleigions all the time it would die out pretty soon.
So all religions are revealed.
From such definition, buddhism could be non revealed.
As others said it is still revealed in the sense they needed to be shared for them to... Well, keep being here. If peoe werent being revealed such rleigions all the time it would die out pretty soon.
So all religions are revealed.